Smt.Seeta Mangotra complainant has filed the present complaint against the titled opposite party U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter for short, the C.P.Act.) in which she has prayed that the opposite party be directed to pay compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- alongwith damages to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- alongwith interest @ 12% on account of mental harassment, agony inconvenience, insult and litigation expenses.    

2.       The case of the complainant in brief is that she got insured her car ‘Nano’ bearing registration No.PB-35-M-9233 with the opposite party vide cover note number 401502/31/12/6100013208 valid from 5.3.2013 to 4.3.2014. On 27.1.2014, the car was driven by her husband Sh.Jagdish Singh Saini and the same met with an accident and the car fell into UBDC Canal, Kotli, Tehsil Pathankot and her husband has expired in the said accident. A DDR No.06 dated 28.1.2014 was registered at Police Station Kanwan, Tehsil and District Pathankot and postmortem of her husband was conducted by Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Pathankot. She has next pleaded that as per the policy she has made payment of Rs.100/- towards compulsory P.A. to owner-cum-driver and the sum assured was Rs.2,00,000/-. She being widow of Late Sh.Jagdish Singh Saini is entitled to receive Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation as per the terms of the policy. She had made several requests to the opposite party to make the payment of Rs.2,00,000/- but of no use. A representation dated 9.4.2014 for payment of compensation was also made to the opposite party, which was replied by the opposite party vide its letter dated 17.4.2014 refused to pay the claim on the grounds that her husband cannot be considered as registered owner and accordingly repudiated the claim. Hence, the present complaint was preferred with the prayed relief as herein above.

3.       Upon notice the opposite party appeared and filed the written reply through their counsel by taking the preliminary objection that complaint is not maintainable in the present form. On merits, it was submitted that this policy is personal accident cover has been issued to the owner of the vehicle i.e. owner as a driver or owner cum driver only is covered under the said policy personal accident PA policy issued to her favour and opposite party is liable to pay to her or owner only Rs.2,00,000/- in case any claim is lodged on account owners death only and thus is a personal contract with the owner only when she as owner cum driver is covered and no one else or her representative, servant, agent, husband, or any other authorized person cannot get any compensation under (PA) policy as this policy is issued in her name and is issued in her name and is a personal contract with the owner only thus the present complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.  It was next submitted that as per terms and conditions of the insurance policy (P.A.) Jagdish Singh Saini husband of owner is not covered and he is not entitled to get any compensation from the opposite party under PA policy. It was specifically denied that driver Jagdish Singh had stepped into the shoes of the owner his wife and had thus become as owner as alleged. Moreover said deceased Jagdish Singh can never be treated as a owner in place of owner as he was having no contract with opposite party and no policy was in his name hence not covered under the PA policy and as such no claim was payable under the policy in question. As per terms and condition of the policy there is no contract of insurance/agreement with Jagdish Singh and he cannot be treated as owner cum driver when owner of the vehicle herself still alive how one can get compensation under PA policy. Thus complaint is liable to be dismissed being not maintainable as per provisions & law. Other averments made in the complaint have been denied. Lastly, the complaint has been prayed to be dismissed with special costs. 

4.       Smt.Seeta Magotra complainant tendered into evidence her own affidavit Ex.C1, alongwith other documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C10 and closed the evidence. 

5.       Sh.Parveen Chadha, Branch Manager of the opposite party tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.OP1 and insurance policy in three pages Ex.OP2 and closed the evidence.

6.       We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties; arguments advanced by their respective counsels and have also appreciated the evidence produced on record with the valuable assistance of the learned counsels for the purpose of adjudication of the present complaint.

7.    From the pleadings and evidence on record it is admitted that the complainant got insured her Nano Car vide policy No. 401502/31/12/6100013208 valid from 5.3.2013 to 4.3.2014. The complainant also paid Rs.100/- towards Personal Accident Coverage to owner-driver. It is the case of the complainant that the vehicle met with an accident on 27.1.2014 and her husband died in the said accident. The vehicle was being driven by her husband at the time of accident. The complainant being the widow of Late Sh.Jagdish Singh is asking for the release of Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation. It is argued on behalf of complainant that her deceased husband stepped into the shoe of the complainant (being registered owner) and as such became owner-cum-driver and was covered under the definition of owner-cum-driver of the vehicle.

8.        On the other hand opposite party has argued that the policy is (P.A.) Personal Accident Cover Policy and the same was issued in the name of complainant/Insured. Only owner as driver is covered in the policy. As per the terms of policy she (complainant) alone is entitled to get compensation if any under the personal Accident Policy. The deceased Jagdish Singh Saini husband of the complainant is not covered in the (P.A.) policy.

9.         We find that as per the policy the coverage is limited to the driver who must also be the owner. The owner of the vehicle was not the driver at the time of accident. As per the terms and conditions of policy only the owner driver is entitled for the insurance coverage. It leads to the fact that the owner must be the driver who is involved in the accident. In the instant case, the complainant being owner was not the driver whereas the complainant's husband was the driver of the vehicle. As per the terms of the policy the deceased husband of the complainant is not covered as he was not the owner/insured of the vehicle.

10.      In the light of all above we find no merit in this complaint and the same is ordered to be dismissed.                                                                                               

11.     Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.  

        (Naveen Puri)

                                                                       President.

ANNOUNCED:                                        (Jagdeep Kaur)

May 8,2015.                                                        Member.

*MK*